IBE, GMR, and Metaphysical Projects

Abstract

David Lewis defends Genuine Modal Realism (GMR) by way of an inference to the best explanation (IBE); reasons of theoretical utility are taken as markers of truth. Warrant for thinking that IBE is reliable depends on the availability of access to the relevant matters that is independent of the various uses of IBE. Domains permitting no such independent access are domains over which we can have no confidence that instances of IBE are reliable. Genuine Modal Realism's plurality of worlds is one such domain. The wider implication is that IBE is not reliable for adjudicating metaphysical disputes.

Modal Epistemology Without Detours

“…They came to be tasked with articulating important aspects of modal reality. I will not rehearse arguments I have given elsewhere against Lewis's use of theoretical utility arguments and the like as failing to warrant his metaphysics (Shalkowski, 2010), (Shalkowski, 2012), which will apply suitably adapted to the other programmes.…”

Metaphysics and Conceptual Negotiation

“…Michael Huemer () works through four different accounts of the evidential value of parsimony in empirical theorizing, and argues that none applies to the philosophical cases, suggesting that in typical philosophical contexts ontological simplicity has no evidential value. Scott Shalkowski () argues that inference to the best explanation can be empirically shown to be a reliable mode of inference where it concerns observables (so that there is the possibility of independent access to confirm its results), but not where its conclusions concern unobservable facts (, 177). Shalkowski concludes that, while inference to the best explanation may be perfectly good in the ordinary empirical cases that motivate it, “there is little hope to be found in the use of [inference to the best explanation] to settle metaphysical questions” (, 184).…”

Carnap’s epistemological critique of metaphysics

“…41 Compare Magnus and Callender (2004). 42 Bennett (2009), Huemer (2009), Shalkowski (2010, Kreigel (2013) and Willard (2014) all seem sympathetic to this objection. See Brenner (2016) for some responses.…”